Page 1

1

REPORTABLE         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA       

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.3209-3210 OF 2015 (Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos.7105-7106 of 2014)

UMRALA GRAM PANCHAYAT                     ……APPELLANT     

Versus THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL   EMPLOYEES UNION & ORS.                   ……RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.           Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed by the appellant  

against  the  final  judgment  and  order  dated  

23.07.2013 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.  

551 of 2013 in Misc. Civil Application No.3071  

of 2012 in Special Civil Application No. 7082 of  

1994, by the High Court of Judicature of Gujarat  

at  Ahmedabad,  whereby  the  High  Court  has  

dismissed the same as being not maintainable and  

has upheld the judgment and order of the learned  

single Judge of the High Court dated 13.07.2010,  

passed in Special Civil Application No. 7082 of

Page 2

2

1994, which is also impugned herein, wherein the  

application  filed  by  the  appellant  has  been  

dismissed by the High Court by confirming the  

Award  dated  15.05.1991  passed  by  the  Labour  

Court in Reference (LCD) No. 6 of 1988.

3. For the purpose of considering the rival legal  

contentions urged on behalf of the parties in  

these  appeals  and  with  a  view  to  find  out  

whether this Court is required to interfere with  

the impugned judgment and orders of the High  

Court as well as the Award of the Labour Court,  

the  necessary  facts  are  briefly  stated  

hereunder:

   The  appellant-Gram  Panchayat  was  duly  

established under the provisions of the Gujarat  

Panchayat Act, 1993 (in short ‘the Act’). The  

workmen of the Panchayat, some of whom are now  

deceased  and  are  being  represented  by  their  

legal heirs, were appointed to the post of safai  

kamdars  of  the  appellant-Panchayat  and  have  

served for many years, varying from 18 years, 16  

years, 8 years, 5 years etc. They were however,

Page 3

3

considered  as  daily  wage  workers  and  were  

therefore, not being paid benefits such as pay  

and allowances etc. as are being paid to the  

permanent  safai  kamdars  of  the  appellant-

Panchayat.     

4. On 23.07.1987, the workmen raised an industrial  

dispute  before  the  Conciliation  Officer  at  

Bhavnagar,  through  the  respondent  no.1,  

Municipal  Employees  Union  (for  short  “Union”)  

stating  therein  that  after  rendering  services  

for a number of years, the workmen are entitled  

to  the  benefit  of  permanency  under  the  

appellant-Panchayat. The settlement between the  

workmen  and  the  appellant-Panchayat  failed  to  

resolve  amicably  during  the  conciliation  

proceedings  and  therefore,  the  failure  report  

was  sent  to  the  Dy.  Commissioner  of  Labour,  

Ahmedabad, who referred the same to the Labour  

Court vide Reference (LCD) No.6/88. The Labour  

Court by its Award held that the workmen are to  

be made permanent employees as safai kamdars in  

the  appellant-Panchayat.  The  Labour  Court  has

Page 4

4

further  directed  the  appellant-Panchayat  that  

the workmen should be paid wages, allowances and  

other monetary benefits as well for which they  

are legally entitled to.  

5. Aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court, the  

appellant-Panchayat filed an appeal before the  

single Judge of the High Court, whereby the same  

was  dismissed  and  it  was  held  that  the  view  

taken by the Labour Court is just and proper as  

it has assigned cogent and convincing reasons  

for arriving at the conclusion that the services  

of  the  concerned  workmen  should  be  made  

permanent  as  the  other  employees  of  the  

appellant. The appellant, thereafter, filed an  

LPA before the Division Bench of the High Court,  

which was also dismissed as not maintainable.  

Hence,  these  appeals  have  been  filed  by  the  

appellant seeking to set aside the judgments and  

orders of the High Court as well as the Award  

passed by the Labour Court.

Page 5

5

6. It has been contended by Mr. Mahendra Anand,  

the  learned  senior  counsel  on  behalf  of  the  

appellant that the workmen were not appointed on  

a permanent basis as the rules and regulations  

as prescribed under the provisions of the Act  

have not been followed. He has further contended  

that the High Court has erred in upholding the  

Award passed by the Labour Court as the same is  

illegal and there is non application of mind by  

the courts below. The Labour Court has wrongly  

held that there are 13 permanent posts available  

for  the  category  in  which  the  concerned  

employees  are  working  as  the  other  three  

employees who are made permanent employees have  

been  made  so  only  because  there  were  clear  

vacant posts available in the approved strength  

in the capacity in which these three employees  

were  made  permanent  and  thus,  there  is  no  

question of any discrimination or unfair labour  

practice on the part of the appellant-Panchayat  

in not making the concerned workmen as permanent  

employees of the appellant.

Page 6

6

7. It has been further contended by the learned  

senior counsel that the concerned workmen were  

engaged in the services, as and when required by  

the appellant-Panchayat and it is not obligatory  

on  the  part  of  the  appellant-Panchayat  to  

provide  work  to  the  workmen  on  a  day-to-day  

basis and the appellant-Panchayat has no control  

over  them  as  there  is  no  employer-employee  

relationship between them. It has been further  

contended  by  him  that  the  appellant-Panchayat  

has no right to make them permanent employees.  

For  making  their  services  permanent  in  the  

appellant-Panchayat,  an  application  has  to  be  

made  before  the  District  Panchayat,  Bhavnagar  

and a demand has to be raised before it and the  

recruitment of the employees of the appellant-

Panchayat  is  done  by  the  Gujarat  Panchayat  

Service Selection Board and directions will be  

issued on its behalf. However, there are no such  

directions issued in relation to the concerned  

workmen.

Page 7

7

8. On the other hand, it has been contended by Mr.  

S.C.  Patel,  the  learned  counsel  appearing  on  

behalf  of  the  respondent-Union  that  the  

concerned  workmen  have  been  working  for  many  

years,  such  as  18  years,  16  years,  8  years  

continuously and some of them have been working  

for  more  than  5  years  in  the  appellant-

Panchayat.  They  are  not  paid  the  monetary  

benefits and allowances etc. as are being paid  

to other permanent safai kamdars who are working  

in  the  appellant-Panchayat.  He  has  further  

contended that the concerned workmen are doing  

the same work as is being done by the permanent  

safai kamdars and they have been working for  

similar number of hours, i.e. eight hours per  

day  like  the  permanent  employees  of  the  

appellant-Panchayat. In spite of it, they are  

being  monetarily  exploited  by  the  appellant-

Panchayat by not being paid regular salary and  

other  monetary  benefits  for  which  they  are  

legally  entitled  to  but  are  being  paid  much  

lesser wage, i.e. Rs.390/- per month. Therefore,  

the  learned  counsel  has  contended  that  the

Page 8

8

appellant is practicing unfair labour practice  

as defined under Section 2(ra) of the Industrial  

Disputes Act, 1947 (in short “the ID Act”) as  

enumerated at Entry No.10 in the Fifth Schedule  

to  the  ID  Act.  Therefore,  the  action  of  the  

appellant-Panchayat is illegal and the workmen  

should be allowed to get permanency in the said  

posts.

9. With  reference  to  the  abovementioned  rival  

legal  contentions  urged  on  behalf  of  the  

parties,  we  have  to  examine  the  impugned  

judgements and orders of the High Court as well  

as the Award passed by the Labour Court, to find  

out  whether  any  substantial  question  of  law  

would arise in these appeals to exercise the  

appellate jurisdiction of this Court?  

10.     On a perusal of the same, we have come to  

the conclusion that the High Court has rightly  

dismissed  the  case  of  the  appellant  as  the  

Labour Court has dealt with the same in detail

Page 9

9

in its reasoning portion of the Award in support  

of  its  findings  of  fact  while  answering  the  

points of dispute and the same cannot be said to  

be either erroneous or error in law. In support  

of the above said conclusions arrived at by us,  

we record our reasons hereunder:

     It is an admitted fact that the work which  

was being done by the concerned workmen was the  

same as that of the permanent workmen of the  

appellant-  Panchayat.  They  have  also  been  

working for similar number of hours, however,  

the discrepancy in the payment of wages/salary  

between  the  permanent  and  the  non-permanent  

workmen  is  alarming  and  the  same  has  to  be  

construed as being an unfair labour practice as  

defined under Section 2(ra) of the ID Act r/w  

Entry No.10 of the Fifth Schedule to the ID Act,  

which is prohibited under Section 25(T) of the  

ID  Act.  Further,  there  is  no  documentary  

evidence produced on record before the Labour  

Court which shows that the present workmen are

Page 10

10

working less or for lesser number of hours than  

the  permanent  employees  of  the  appellant-

Panchayat. Thus, on the face of it, the work  

being done by the concerned workmen has been  

permanent in nature and the Labour Court as well  

as  the  High  Court  have  come  to  the  right  

conclusion on the points of dispute and have  

rightly  rejected  the  contention  of  the  

appellant-Panchayat  as  the  same  amounts  to  

unfair  labour  practice  by  the  appellant-

Panchayat  which  is  prohibited  under  Section  

25(T)  of  the  ID  Act  and  it  also  amounts  to  

statutory offence on the part of the appellant  

under Section 25(U) of the ID Act for which it  

is liable to be prosecuted.  

11.    Further, the Labour Court has rightly held  

that there is no restriction for the recruitment  

of  the  workmen  in  the  Panchayat’s  set-up  as  

there  is  evidence  to  show  that  by  making  a  

proposal, the District Panchayat has increased  

the  work  force  in  the  establishment  of  the  

appellant-Panchayat  and  therefore,  the

Page 11

11

contention urged by the learned senior counsel  

appearing for the appellant-Panchayat that there  

are only limited number of permanent vacancies  

for  the  workmen  in  the  Panchayat  of  the  

appellant is not tenable in law.

 12.   Further, we have also taken note of the  

fact  that  the  financial  position  of  the  

Panchayat is not so unsound as no activity of  

the Panchayat has been discontinued, as all the  

other  workers  of  the  appellant-Panchayat  are  

being paid their wages regularly. Thus, there  

would  be  no  difficulty  for  the  appellant-

Panchayat to bear the extra cost for the payment  

of the wages/salary and other monetary benefits  

to  the  concerned  workmen  if  they  are  made  

permanent.  

13.   Further,  Section  25(T)  of  the  ID  Act  

clearly  states  that  unfair  labour  practice  

should not be encouraged and the same should be  

discontinued. In the present case, the principle  

“equal work, equal pay” has been violated by the

Page 12

12

appellant-Panchayat as they have been treating  

the  concerned  workmen  unfairly  and  therefore,  

the demand raised by the respondent-Union needs  

to be accepted. The High Court has thus, rightly  

not  interfered  with  the  Award  of  the  Labour  

Court as the same is legal and supported with  

cogent and valid reasons.  

14.  Therefore, the learned single Judge as well as  

the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  have  

exercised the power under Articles 226 and 227  

of the Constitution of India and have rightly  

held that the Labour Court has jurisdiction to  

decide  the  industrial  dispute  that  has  been  

referred  to  it  by  the  Dy.  Commissioner  of  

Labour, Ahmedabad. Reliance has been placed upon  

the  decision  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of  

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and  

Anr. v. Casteribe  Rajya  P.  Karmchari  

Sanghatana1, wherein it has been held thus:

“32.The power given to the Industrial  and Labour Courts under Section 30 is  

1  (2009) 8 SCC 556

Page 13

13

very  wide  and  the  affirmative  action  mentioned therein is inclusive and not  exhaustive.  Employing  badlis,  casuals  or temporaries and to continue them as  such  for  years,  with  the  object  of  depriving  them  of  the  status  and  privileges of permanent employees is an  unfair labour practice on the part of  the employer under item 6 of Schedule  IV. Once such unfair labour practice on  the part of the employer is established  in  the  complaint,  the  Industrial  and  Labour  Courts  are  empowered  to  issue  preventive  as  well  as  positive  direction to an erring employer.”

  Further,  reliance  has  been  placed  upon  the  

decision  of  this  Court  in  the  case  of  Durgapur  

Casual Workers Union v. Food Corporation of India,2  

wherein it has been held thus:

“19. Almost similar issue relating to  unfair trade practice by employer and  the effect of decision of Umadevi (3)  in the grant of relief was considered  by  this  Court  in Ajaypal  Singh  v.  Haryana  Warehousing  Corporation in  Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2014 decided  on  9th July,  2014.  In  the  said  case,  this  Court  observed  and  held  as  follows:

20. The provisions of Industrial  Disputes  Act and  the powers  of  the Industrial and Labour Courts  provided therein were not at all  under consideration in Umadevi's  case.  The  issue  pertaining  to  unfair  labour  practice  was  neither  the  subject  matter  for  decision  nor was  it decided  in  Umadevi's case.

2  (2014) 13 SCALE 644

Page 14

14

21. We  have  noticed  that  Industrial Disputes Act is made  for  settlement  of  industrial  disputes  and  for  certain  other  purposes as mentioned therein. It  prohibits unfair labour practice  on the part of the employer in  engaging employees as casual or  temporary  employees  for  a  long  period  without  giving  them  the  status  and  privileges  of  permanent employees….””

15.   Thus, in the light of the above referred  

cases of this Court, it is amply clear that the  

judgments and orders of the High Court and the  

Award passed by the Labour Court are reasonable  

and the same have been arrived at in a just and  

fair manner.  

16.  The  reliance  placed  by  the  learned  senior  

counsel for the appellant upon the decision of  

this Court in  Secretary, State of Karnataka &  

Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors.3, does not apply to the  fact situation of the present case and the same  

cannot be accepted by us in the light of the  

cogent reasons arrived at by the courts below.

3  (2006) 4 SCC 1

Page 15

15

17.   In view of the reasons stated supra and in  

the light of the facts and circumstances of the  

present case, we hold that the services of the  

concerned workmen are permanent in nature, since  

they have worked for more than 240 days in a  

calendar year from the date of their initial  

appointment, which is clear from the evidence on  

record.  Therefore,  not  making  their  services  

permanent  by  the  appellant-Panchayat  is  

erroneous  and  also  amounts  to  error  in  law.  

Hence, the same cannot be allowed to sustain in  

law.

18.    For the reasons stated supra, we dismiss  

the appeals and direct the appellants to treat  

the  services  of  the  concerned  workmen  as  

permanent employees, after five years of their  

initial appointment as daily wage workmen till  

they attain the age of superannuation for the  

purpose of granting terminal benefits to them.

Page 16

16

19.    The appellant is further directed to pay  

the regular pay-scale as per the revised pay  

scale  fixed  to  the  post  of  permanent  safai  

kamdars for a total period of 15 years to the  

concerned workmen and the legal representatives  

of  the  deceased  workmen.  The  same  shall  be  

implemented within six weeks from the date of  

receipt of copy of this judgment and compliance  

report of the same shall be submitted for the  

perusal of this Court. No Costs.

                              ……………………………………………………J.                                   [V. GOPALA GOWDA]

                                  ………………………………………………….J.  

                                [C.NAGAPPAN] New Delhi, March 27, 2015  

Page 17

17

ITEM NO.1A-For Judgment     COURT NO.10               SECTION XV                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS C.A.No......./2015 @ SLP (C)  No(s). 7105-7106/2014 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 23/07/2013  in LPA No. 551/2013,23/07/2013 in SCA No. 7082/1994,23/07/2013 in  MCA No. 3071/2012,13/07/2010 in SCA No. 7082/1994 passed by the  High Court Of Gujarat At Ahmedabad) UMRALA GRAM PANCHAYAT                              Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS THE SEC.MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE UNION & ORS             Respondent(s) Date : 27/03/2015 These petitions were called on for pronouncement  of JUDGMENT today. For Petitioner(s)                      Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar,Adv.                       For Respondent(s)                      Mr. S. C. Patel,Adv.                       

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  V.Gopala  Gowda  pronounced  the  judgment of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr.  Justice C. Nagappan.

Leave granted. The  appeals  are  dismissed  in  terms  of  the  signed   

Reportable Judgment.       (VINOD KR. JHA)    (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)

COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed Reportable judgment is placed on the file)